Mapman wrote,
"Is sixty dollars cheap for something tbat may not do anything?"
There are no guarantees in life. Well, actually that's not really true. I guarantee all my products, even the Teleportation Tweak. Happy, now? Rhetorical Question. Of course you're not happy. Lol |
FWIW, having never tried Bybee stuff, I do think there is a good chance they actually do something. I fact I would be willing to bet on it. I am not to that point yet with the life on Mars thing. There is scientific evidence now that that might be possible, but certainly it is still far from conclusive. A discovery of fossils in those sedimentary rock beds on Mars similar to what occurs on Earth would probably do it. |
Sabai wrote,
"You have put this very well when you state, "Not change the subject, obfuscate, or go on the attack of the questioner." Of course, you must be talking about Geoffkait who is the most obvious changer of subjects and the most obvious obsfuscater and the most obvious attacker in this discussion."
Am I really that obvious? All this time I thought I was being subtle. I must be losing my touch.
" ...go on the attack of the questioner." That's priceless!
"Nothing is written unless I say it is written". ~ Lawrence of Arabia |
"Am I really that obvious? All this time I thought I was being subtle. I must be losing my touch. "
There are many smart people on Agon.
Enough said. |
"There are many smart people on Agon."
In fact, that is a big reason why I spend as much time as I do here. THat and the fact that I love music and have a keen interest in good audio. |
Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography: HarmonizerMight even have some quantum principles in its design. Dunno. Any insights? Opinions are fine. Scientific principles that I might understand is better. Not cheap though. Disclaimer: The fact that I think this expensive tweak might actually do something constructive does not mean that I think all tweaks are good. Yes, Machina Dynamica also sells esoteric tweaks for relatively cheap in comparison, but that is a completely different story. $60 is a big markup for something that appears worthless and based on malarky. |
That's weird. According to the poll over on the Soundstage/Imaging thread currently underway on A-gon, most respondees minimize or dismiss Holographic Sound, putting soundstage/imaging last or close to last on the list of priorities. Just as I suspected.
|
I'm not sure speakers can be designed specifically for holographic sound.
If speakers do the other things identified in that thread well, and additional things are in place with the system and recordings as I mentioned in my recipe early on, then holography or a 3-d soundstage, assuming these are synonymous, can happen, if one cares about it.
I suspect there are many that do not in practice though. My guess is that could be partially because so many other things must be done right first before one has a good chance at decent holography/3-d sound. |
Also, hey I believe in holographic sound. THat's all that rally matters to me.
I think that there are many who have never heard "holographic sound" and may not know what they are missing. THen, once they do, it is still possible that they will not care. ITs kind of the final frontier of home audio in my mind. Many may choose to never venture there. That does not make them bad people. Their stuff might still be considered "high end" for all the other reasons. |
Sabai wrote,
"Geoffkait,
After your failed attempt to convince us that Kal Rubinson of Stereophile does not believe in holographic sound, may I reiterate:
Could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" minimizes the importance of holographic sound and their reasons for doing so -- and where they have actually stated this? And could you please give us the details regarding who "in the industry" actually denies the existence of holographic sound and where they have actually stated this?"
You left out the part where I said "...or believe that soundstage is artificial."
Here are a few of Kal's many statements/opinions regarding stereo imaging and soundstage. Enjoy.
"You can think and prefer what ever you like, of course. And, yes, it is fairly demanding. However, the accurate reproduction of a performance in a real space simply requires more than 2 channels/speakers. (See Floyd Toole's new book for lots of discussion.)
It is unfortunate that you, and many others, have not had the opportunity to hear what is possible with a proper multichannel music system. I believe that some of the problem is that most high-end vendors are equally in denial."
Kal
"The sound reflections accomplished with stereo speakers may be somewhat satisfying but they are not a reproduction of the original performance space and, notably, they are the same for every recording you play."
Kal
"With 2 channel stereo playing music the entire room is filled with ambiance in front of the orchestral shell extending to the directly in front of my sitting position. In other words my entire room is alive with sound, the performers up on the stage and the ambiance everywhere else. With multi-channel the center channel and the rears speakers suck out the ambiance on the sides of my room. Since I don't like sound coming from the rear anyway I tried putting the rear speakers on the sides of the room but that didn't work either. I short no where could I put 5 speakers that would even come close to the sonic realism of what 2 floor standing full range speakers can do."
That may be your perception and your preference but it is not realism. In any real-world live performance the ambiance comes from all directions. Folding it all to the front and relying on the spurious and inflexible reflections of your rooms ambient contributions is artificial. As for splitting a discrete center to the L/R speakers, that, too, creates shifts and cancellations that result in a center fill that is insubstantial compared to three across.
Of course, as ever, for what it is, de gustibus non est disputandem."
Kal |
When this thread comes up now all it does is remind me of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. Forgive me for LMAO, I know some don't think this is funny. Dull day I guess. :-) |
Mapman,
When you stated, "I think that there are many who have never heard "holographic sound" and may not know what they are missing ... ITs kind of the final frontier of home audio in my mind." This is what I have been alluding to in my posts. |
Geoffkait,
Of course, the issue is not what Kal Rubinson of Stereophile thinks of 2-channel or 5-channel systems -- and your statement that you do not agree with what he says when you do not even report accurately what he does in fact say. In which case, why even bother pretending that what he says is important when you misquote him and then contradict him in the end? This is just another of your many diversions and convoluted ramblings.
And the issue is not that sound systems are not concert halls. The issue is holographic sound, how we perceive it and what brings us closer to it. |
I need a show of hands here. Who would agree that this post of mine that has been disallowed by the moderator is "inappropriate" or "inflammatory"? Is it any more "inappropriate" or "inflammatory" than many posts of Geoffkait that have not been disallowed?
Geeoffkait, But if you read his many reviews he [Kal Rubinson] has no such misgivings when commenting on the sound stage of the 2-channel equipment he is reviewing. Talking about the sound stage being artificial is like saying chicken noodle soup is not a chicken. I mean, whoever would claim that the sound stage of an audio system represents the actual sound stage? That is physically impossible. An audio sound stage is a facsimile, of course. This is too elementary. Adding this third element gives you an escape hatch. Tootles-style. Typical. |
Who gives a rat's arse what Kal says? He is entitled to his opinions as well but why would I care what he says or not specifically.
Sabai, Geof, I suggest we call a truce. Surely there is something more relevant we can discuss regarding holography? |
To me there is little more satisfying than a reach out and touch type presentation in your room.
I have some recordings (old sony classical recordings from the 1960s) that are just like being there. They are breath taking. This is what holographic sound is to me.
Every little step upgrading parts, cables, clean power, speaker placement, point to point wiring, fuses and so on enabled that presentation.
I hope not to start another argument, but I also feel tube power with all its faults is most capable of producing that kind of 3D soundstage. |
"To me there is little more satisfying than a reach out and touch type presentation in your room. "
I am in that camp as well.
Tubes are fine and may have some advantages in some ways for this, but in teh end its a matter of getting everything right end including crossing the Ts and dotting the I's. There are many recipes for great soup! But there are even more for other kinds. |
" getting everything right end "
Typo. SHould have read "end to end".
That includes the environment/room recording and the listener, not just the gear. |
|
Just read an on-line review of a product that's a tweak for a tweak. It's something you stick on the end of your upgraded fuses. The reviewer swears it enhances the holographic effect. And yes, it uses the word "quantum" in its name. I'm not making this shit up! |
Mapman.
You stated, "Who gives a rat's arse what Kal says? He is entitled to his opinions as well but why would I care what he says or not specifically." I agree.
You also stated, "Sabai, Geof, I suggest we call a truce. Surely there is something more relevant we can discuss regarding holography?" I agree. Making personal comments, misquoting people you say you do not even agree with and other convoluted comments are digressions. They misdirect the discussion. This topic is about holography -- not about inappropriate digressions. If we stick to the subject in a clear and concise way no one can have any objections. |
I would also say that MIT cables seem to have a dimensional quality too.
I have only just tuned into MIT and so far they seem to be one of the better cables at depth that I have tried, while keep focus and detail.
Anyone tried other brands that do the same? Some of the higher Virtual Dynamics were not bad at this. |
Chad,
I find different IC will effect how soundstage/imaging occurs in different ways but I do not know if one is inherently better than another in any particular case. Like most tweaks, I think it depends.
I know what you are saying about the MIT cables. Even the older less expensive ones I use (Terminator series) work well in this regard. So do the DNM Reson ICs I use in my main rig currently. I could go either way depending on mood. Tonality/timbre is the biggest difference I hear between these two. MIT does bass very well and is smooth and controlled everythere else. DNM Reson adds a little definition and clarity to the midrange, which I tend to like with my OHMs in particular. I tend to be able to follow what singers are saying easier with DNM. Both are very good. I think it depends.... |
Kal wrote,
"The sound reflections accomplished with stereo speakers may be somewhat satisfying but they are not a reproduction of the original performance space and, notably, they are the same for every recording you play."
Clearly he doesn't believe the ambient information of the venue is embedded in the recording. He believes the reflected sound in the room is *solely* responsible for the spatial information, I.e. holographic sound. By this logic if one treats the room acoustically, to minimize reflections, there would be practically no holographic image left at all. |
Mapman wrote,
"Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography:
Harmonizer (by SteinMusic)
Might even have some quantum principles in its design.
Dunno.
Any insights?
Opinions are fine. Scientific principles that I might understand is better.
Not cheap though."
I find the SteinMusic Harmonizer fascinating. |
Not that I care what Kal thinks, but:
Its not clear to me at all that that is what he believes. HE might mean that the listening room is the same which is true and that ambient information is there but not delivered exactly as recorded which I would also agree with.
Geoff, I care more that one being a technical person they do more diligence reading carefully and being clearer about what is their interpretation of what is read rather than asserting things that were not said. |
Sabai -- Your disagreement with Geoff about Kal's views reminds me of my disagreement with him about Gravitational Lensing on the Magic thread. The point isn't really about the details of Kal's views or the details of Gravitational Lensing. It's about whether facts are being accurately represented or not. Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoffs infinite staircase. Come to think of it, I think Machina Dynamica sells one of those. As far as the views expressed in the quotes of Kal provided by Geoff, I am in agreement with at least one of them: Kal's observation that two channel playback results in a spatial presentation in the listening space that often differs from the spatial presentation in the recording space (assuming there was one). That is because, a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions. The listening space itself can augment the ambient cues of the recording, and in the best cases, the ambient cues of the listening space RESEMBLE the ambient cues of the recording space. But for any particular system, there will be recordings for which the ambient cues of the listening space do not resemble those of the recording space. When that happens, what is heard at the listening position isnt a fully accurate representation of the recording space. Having said that, I depart from Kal's views (assuming I understand them) insofar as I believe that it is possible to construct a listening space that is, to some extent, acoustically ambiguous. In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording. My own listening room doesn't fit that description, but I've been in professional recording and mixing spaces that do. IMO, to the extent that a listening space is acoustically ambiguous, the ambient cues of a wider range of recording spaces are more likely to be realistically represented. As for the issue of "holographic" sound, I for one don't believe that a fully accurate representation of the recording space is necessary for the sound in the listening space to be "holographic." That is because, IMO, holographic sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF. And a two channel system is, IMO, quite capable of realistically presenting instruments and performers, even when it isn't a strictly accurate representation of the recording space. In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like. The ambient cues of the recording space may never make it to the listener, either because the recording does not contain them, the playback system misrepresents them, or the listening room alters them. Nevertheless, a playback system can still create the illusion that "They are Here." But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that " You are There." IMO, of course. Bryon |
"In other words, IMO, "holographic" sound is less about ACCURACY relative to the recording and more about REALISM relative to what instruments and performers actually sound like."
Bryon, that's a very good way to say it (as usual).
Its also a good reason why audiophiles who might not care otherwise should. Without it, instruments and performers sound less real.
I have at least one MErcury Perfect Presence LP that shows a diagram of where the players were located and the mikes during recording. This provides a useful reference regarding the accuracy of the players location while listening in your room. Relative positions should be and are distinguishable in at least two dimensions (width and depth), possibly even height (do not recall if the diagram indicated relative height of players as a reference).
0% of my other thousands of recordings have this information readily available as a reference. For many recordings not miked properly at a live performance, it becomes mostly irrelevant. SInce there is no practical reference, I pay no attention to that aspect. Only that what I am listening to sounds "real", and the 3-D imaging/holography helps enable that since sound is a 3 dimensional (actually 4) phenomenon. That's a big reason I think why I am fond of more omnidirectional (or even wider dispersion) speaker designs. SOund does not occur naturally in 1 dimension (width) only. ALthough more directional speakers combined with the rest might still do OK, its like fitting a square peg in a round hole. |
Bryoncunningham,
You stated, "Unfortunately, even if you win this round, he will pivot to another topic. You have stumbled onto Geoffs infinite staircase." Of course, you are absolutely correct. Which is why am staying in the wings at the moment. If he comes round with a new version of his same-old it will be evident and no comments will be necessary to state the obvious.
You have made some very interesting observations in your post.
You stated, "a two channel playback system presents whatever ambient cues the recording contains primarily from two directions the direction of the two speakers. But the ambient cues in the recording space were presented from all directions." This is a very interesting point. I believe it is a bit more complex than this. We have only two ears but, with the help of the brain, we perceive 3-dimensional sound. The same with having two eyes but they enable us to see in 3 dimensions.
Stereo recordings pick up sound from all directions. Good audio systems are able to reproduce the ambient cues in stereo recordings 3-dimensionally. Presenting the sound from two directions, two speakers, is limiting to an extent, of course, especially when the equipment is not at a level that can reproduce 3-D sound in an effective way. In this sense it is not the 2 speakers that are limiting but the quality of the system itself.
You stated, "what is heard at the listening position isnt a fully accurate representation of the recording space." That's true. It cannot be because our listening rooms are not studios or concert halls. The listening venue is a facsimile of the recording venue. The extent to which it is able to recreate that venue in a 3-D way depends on the quality of the system.
You stated, "In other words, a space in which the *apparent* size, shape, and materials of the room change from recording to recording." This is precisely what astonishes me about my own system. It can sound so different from recording to recording.
You stated, "IMO, holographic sound is more about the realistic presentation of INSTRUMENTS AND PERFORMERS than it is about the realistic presentation of THE RECORDING SPACE ITSELF." I agree -- almost completely. Although my system gives an excellent feeling for the ambience of a church or other special venue where a recording has been made, it is the presentation of instruments and performers in a very life-like 3-D panorama that distinguishes its sound. It is the sense of realism of instruments and performers, as you point out, that is important here.
You stated, "But when the ambient cues of the recording space are lost, what goes with it is the illusion that "You are There."" Exactly. The more refined the system, the more it is able to pick up and reproduce ambient cues and the greater the resultant sense of "being there". |
"Only that what I am listening to sounds "real", and the 3-D imaging/holography helps enable that since sound is a 3 dimensional (actually 4) phenomenon. "
Surprizingly enough (at least to me at first) I've found that this even works for mono recordings, at least in some cases. It works best for me with either pair of my OHM Walsh omnis. Good mono recordings (remastered mono Muddy Waters for example) have a three dimensional ambiance to the point where sometimes I cannot tell for certain if it is a mono or stereo recording just by listening. Its an amazing thing! And with the OHM omnis, the 3-D image hold together coherently from most any listening position in from of the speakers. I can elect to listen from different seats in my listening room venue just like at a live performance and the only thing that changes is the perspective and sometimes, but not really in a noticeable way usually the timbre just very slighly since the OHM Walsh tweeters above 7-8 Khz or so are more directional. mbl omnis in comparison are full omni at all frequencies and very holographic as well set up well (maybe the best I have heard) but those crossover much lower and multiple times so the music is perhaps not quite as coherent or organic as the OHMs.
You gotta hear it to believe it sometimes I imagine. |
Mapman wrote,
"Surprizingly enough (at least to me at first) I've found that this even works for mono recordings, at least in some cases. It works best for me with either pair of my OHM Walsh omnis. Good mono recordings (remastered mono Muddy Waters for example) have a three dimensional ambiance to the point where sometimes I cannot tell for certain if it is a mono or stereo recording just by listening. Its an amazing thing!"
Gosh, you can be quite the provocateur.
:-) |
q: Muddy Waters is:
a) a reknowned Chicago blues musician
b) a stream with high fine grained suspended sediment content
c) how H2O looks after most any discussion with Geoff
Thank you.....
:) |
Bryoncunningham,
The question of what creates sound stage is an interesting one. In an open-air concert the sound does not come from all directions. It comes primarily from the amplification system used by the performers. In enclosed spaces like studios and concert halls reflected sound comes into play. All recordings contain the ambient cues for the venue where the performance took place. Better quality recordings contain more of this information. The better the audio system the more ambient cues can be retrieved and reassembled to create a more pleasing sound stage.
By more pleasing I mean a holographic sound stage that produces more of that sense of "being there". I believe that "realism" is the most difficult thing for a sound system to reproduce. Which is why I have spent so much time, effort and money on cables and tweaks. The right combination can yield stunning results. |
Let's visit with the SteinMusic Harmonizer a little while. I have no commercial interest in this product. Apparently this device does for Holographic Sound what Carter's Little Liver Pills does for liver. Thanks to Mapman for the shout out for the Harmonizer.
SteinMusic Harmonizer review in Positive Feedback Online:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue59/harmonizer.htm
Excerpt from the Review:
"Enter German physicist, engineer, and audiophile Holger Stein. He discovers that air vibrates at certain frequencies and, in the presence of those vibrations, becomes more compliant. If air is more compliant, then sound waves have an easier path to your ears. Enter the SteinMusic Harmonizers... elegant boxes sold in pairs that generate vibrations that make the air more transmissive of music in all its complexities.
Holger Stein has discovered the "missing link" to producing the musical event in your home. Through his devices, you see the performance with your ears with repeatable, adjustable, scientific certainty for the first time. Welcome to the future my friends!
While a few other reviewers have tried the Stein gear, none have assembled a state-of-the-art system which was truly great to begin with. Referred to me by none other than the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee, I felt duty bound to give it a try, though I remained skeptical until I heard the first few notes.
There is now a spot on the carpet where my jaw hit the ground." |
I would very much like to hear the harmonizer in my system. I expect it could well have a positive effect in that it seems to based on scientific principles I can understand. Sound travels through air. Physical properties of air determine how it travels. The gadget seems to be an active device that creates sonic waves of a certain design. Something different is likely to result if all goes as described. It could be significant. Even if I decide to not shell out the dough at this time (most likely given priorities) it would be a worthwhile experiment because the indicators are something might actually happen. MAybe a good use of time. Scientists select experiments that they believe have a good chance of working based on their understanding of scientific principles. That is the key to GOOD science. Knowledge to start relevant to questions to be answered. Some experiments make sense and some do not. Audio fuse experiments actually do make sense to me. That does not mean I want to do them though. |
Listening to music has now become a science project with experiments. This thread has become a parody of a satire. |
"Listening to music has now become a science project with experiments. This thread has become a parody of a satire."
Listening to music does not require a science project.
But I would argue that getting the sound one wants out of a stereo system (via tweaking) is exactly like a science project.
Of course there is good, bad (and weird?) science and they are all not equally effective. |
"This thread has become a parody of a satire."
I agree it has in certain ways but still hopeful to turn that around. There are some smart people participating. |
Now that weird science movie theme song (which I like) will be going through my head whenever we start talking about phone books and such.... I will try to control myself..... |
Kelly Lebrock too! I will try to control myself.... |
Geoff
The Stein stuff.. Magic Pebbles on electronic full focused frontal gravitational pull of steroids..Kool. Tom |
10-05-12: Sabai
The question of what creates sound stage is an interesting one. In an open-air concert the sound does not come from all directions. It comes primarily from the amplification system used by the performers. In enclosed spaces like studios and concert halls reflected sound comes into play. All recordings contain the ambient cues for the venue where the performance took place. Better quality recordings contain more of this information. The better the audio system the more ambient cues can be retrieved and reassembled to create a more pleasing sound stage. Hi Sabai - I think we are more or less in agreement. To clarify my views, here are some comments I made on the "They are here" vs. "You are there" thread... ________________________________ Ambient cues provide information about features of a physical space like: size, shape, materials, and object position. Every listening room contains an abundance of ambient cues. The specific characteristics of those ambient cues are relevant to the audiophile, for the following reason: During playback, the ambient cues of the recording space are COMBINED with the ambient cues of the listening space. The combination of the ambient cues of the recording space with the ambient cues of the listening space creates, in effect, a NEW SET OF AMBIENT CUES. I will call this new set of ambient cues the playback space. In other words: Recording space + Listening space = Playback space The playback space is what the audiophile actually hears at the listening position. It is the combination of the ambient cues of the recording space and the ambient cues of the listening space. When trying to create the illusion that you are there, an audiophile tries to create a playback space whose ambient cues are as close as possible to the ambient cues of the recording space. As I see it, there are two possible ways to go about this: 1. Construct a listening space whose ambient cues resemble the ambient cues of the recording space. 2. Construct a listening space that minimizes ambient cues. ...Both approaches have liabilities, but it is the liabilities of the second approach that are relevant at the moment, for the following reason: To the extent that you minimize the ambient cues of the listening space, the sound arriving at the listener will not be OMNIDIRECTIONAL. It will be BIDIRECTIONAL, assuming you are listening in stereo. Even if the recording has OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues, what you will hear at the listening position is the BIDIRECTIONAL presentation of OMNIDIRECTIONAL ambient cues... That difference is the fundamental limitation in the approach of minimizing the ambient cues of the listening room when trying to create the illusion that "you are there." ___________________________________ I went on in the same thread to propose a third approach to creating the illusion that "you are there"... 3. Construct a listening space that is acoustically ambiguous. I believe that, of the three approaches, this last one allows for the widest range of recording spaces to be realistically represented in the listening room. As I mentioned in my last post, I don't believe that the illusion that "you are there" is the same thing as "holographic sound." I think the latter is possible without the former. Having said that, I also believe that efforts to enhance the illusion that "you are there" will usually enhance the experience of "holographic sound." IMO, IME, YMMV, etc. Bryon |
Regarding the Steinmusic Harmonizer review, it is interesting that the "controversial Jack Bybee" is not referred to as "controversial" but in glowing terms as "the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee..." |
Bryoncunningham,
I have not read your earlier comments. But I will do so today. You stated, "Recording space + Listening space = Playback space", which is quite accurate, of course. I don't know how to make my room acoustically ambiguous.
I think the best we can hope for, ultimately, is to improve our systems so that we can get as close to "being there" as possible. An actual recreation of "being there" will always be elusive for the reasons that you state. It sounds like the Steinmusic Harmonizer is a step in the right direction. It has been around for nearly 3 years and has had universally good reviews. I note that, according to reviews, it works even better when used with Synergistic Research ART. The latter does things that the Steinmusic Harmonizer does not do, apparently.
Although I have not had the opportunity to audition the Steinmusic I would venture to say that it still will not make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If it is introduced into a run-of-the-mill audio system I don't imagine its effects will even come close to its effects in a more "evolved" sound system. |
Bryoncunningham,
I am reading your earlier thread which is excellent. I have a few observations.
I have no idea what the word "neutral" means when referring to audio equipment because all audio equipment imparts its own characteristics to playback. IMO, all audio equipment adds "color" playback.
I listen mostly to classical music as well as some jazz, blues and popular music. I am from that generation that used to have a "collection". I still do.
I think one important thing we have overlooked is that music is essentially in the mind. There are the room, the recording and the equipment. But the ears are connected to the brain. It is the mind where all music plays. What we are actually talking about is the recreation of sound in the listening room of the mind because the actual room will never resemble the actual recording venue. Although a larger room may help reproduce in the mind the "being there" feeling, with some kinds of recordings, I believe you can have that "big sound" in the mind in a smaller room, as well, if the sense of scale is being reproduced by a well-evolved system.
In my system, with good recordings, the sound expands well beyond the walls. The reflected sound of my room will come into play but only to an extent. With my system, the reflected sound of the venue is much more predominant and important than that of the room and the mind perceives this as the "being there" effect.
I believe that room treatments like Synergistic Research ART and Steinmusic Harmonizers can totally change room limitations and their effect on how the mind perceives the sound. I have Shakti Hallographs in place with SR ART yet to be unboxed. The Steinmusic Harmonizers may follow in due course.
Bryoncunningham, regarding your earlier thread:
Cbw723 stated, "Finally, I'm not sure how much the playback system's coloration is an issue. Assuming the system is good enough to produce playback with a convincing live or nearly live sound (as judged by the system's owner/primary listener), it seems unlikely that the ambience cues are going to be distorted to a point that they become an impediment to a "you are there" experience.". I agree. But I think that coloration can become a problem with mismatched components or cables/tweaks. In this regard, the right choice of components and cables/tweaks is vitally important. This has been by experience with my system.
Learsfool paraphrased another poster, "you cannot put into your listening room something that was not in the recording in the first place." I agree. This goes along with my notion that, regarding the equipment's effect on sound reproduction, you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Both of these elements will decide the quality of the sound more than room characteristics, IMO.
He also stated, "The engineer then takes these tracks, mixes them, and then adds digital reverberation to create a false ambience, one that he thinks sounds good.". Which is why I prefer classical recordings that recreate the actual venue with mikes, not with remixing like "the older recordings from the so-called "golden age," where folks like Mercury and RCA just hung a couple of mikes up out in the concert hall and therefore created much more of a "you are there" experience than anything recorded today.".
When Learsfool observed regarding a Berstein recording at the Met, "That recording has great sonics which really do create a "you are there" experience, but you need a system that has an appropriate soundstage and images well to fully experience it". This is exactly what I refer to as the silk purse. And when he states, "I am merely trying to explain why musicians place such a high priority on soundstaging and imaging. They are crucial to creating a "you are there" experience.", I could not agree more.
Bryon, when you stated, "I suppose there is no reason why, in theory, a virtual recording space couldnt be as interesting as a real one.", if you listen to Zenph recreations I think you will understand why I feel, although they are technically excellent, they do not have the feeling of "alive" and "real" that actual live studio or concert recordings have. I have all of the Zenph recordings.
I also agree with Learsfool when he stated, "Hi Bryon - we are generally in agreement here. Where I would differ with you would be on the subject of the listening room being much of a factor at all in picking up what you are calling "ambient cues" in the recording ... The equipment would have a much greater effect on it in general." And, concerning ambient cues, I agree with Learsfool about Sonus Faber speakers. I have Joseph Audio Pulars that do an excellent job in this department.
I agree with Learsfool's observation that, with concert hall sound, "the overall effect is not PRIMARILY omni-directional, only secondarily so." As well, I agree with his observation that "listening rooms do not come anywhere near capable of recreating the original recording space, if this space is a concert hall (or a good jazz club, for that matter) - so this means that the listening space will ALWAYS be fundamentally different from the recording space, as I believe you put it, in these cases, and this is why I believe you are overestimating it's importance."
Rtn1,
I agree completely with you when you stated, "I have achieve[d] the 'you are there' experience for the majority of my recordings. This is achieved by lowering the 'noise' and removing electronic artifacts. I put noise in quotes because there is also noise and distortion you cannot hear. I believe it also takes a highly resolving source (i.e. DAC). I do not think the recording is a limitation. The spatial cues are there, they are masked by most equipment." This describes what Bybee products do so well in my system. |
Sabai wrote,
"Regarding the Steinmusic Harmonizer review, it is interesting that the "controversial Jack Bybee" is not referred to as "controversial" but in glowing terms as "the 'Dean of Audio' himself, Jack Bybee...""
Uh, I'm pretty controversial means there are two opposing views. I'm also pretty sure that those who actually try the Bybee products are on the Pro Side, and would, of course, support him. And those who haven't tried the Bybees, who are simply reacting to the word "quantum" or its size, whatever, are on the Against Side. You know the type. :-) |
I realize now that I am all in with tweak, the verb, whereas with tweak the noun its way more hit or miss, mostly miss. I just really do not think getting really good home audio sound is so hard that the rigjht knowledge and addressing the fundamentals via tweaking can't solve the problem for most. |
"Here's an interesting gadget that might actually work as best I can tell and perhaps even help holography:"
Mapman, I was fortunate enough to get a chance to hear the Harmonizer with new Harbeth 30.1's at my local shop last month. The difference is not subtle and yes, it's the first time I've ever heard what I would consider to be Holographic sound in my life. Walter Swanbon of Fidelis in New Hampshire is a distributor for them and was rolling through my home town and I was invited to an audition. Everyone in the room that night was in awe over this product. I will not pretend to understand what it's doing but it's doing. |
Donjr wrote,
"I will not pretend to understand what it's doing but it's doing."
That's the ubiquitous line almost all reviewers use when reporting on tweaks with, uh, difficult or preposterous sounding explanations. Perhaps, Mapman would like to chime in on how it works. As I recall his BS Detector didn't go off on the SteinMusic Harmonizer. |
Hi Sabai - Thanks for your comments, which are thoughtful and reasonable. It sounds like we have somewhat different views on the importance of the listening room, not only for creating the illusion that "you are there," but also for creating a sound that is "holographic." In my view...
In the listening room, the ambient cues of the room combine with the ambient cues of the recording. To the extent that the ambient cues of the listening room resemble the ambient cues of the recording, the listening room serves as a *simulacrum* of the recording space. I agree with both you and Learsfool that this is rare, both because typical recording spaces are so unlike the typical listening room and because the typical listening room is acoustically untreated. The problem, as I see it, is that the typical listening room is both...
1. Acoustically reactive, and
2. Acoustically distinct.
RE: 1. Acoustically reactive, or "live" rooms, provide an abundance of ambient cues. When those ambient cues fail to resemble the ambient cues of the recording, as they often do, the result is that the sound at the listening position during playback is acoustically contradictory, and therefore confusing. IMO.
RE: 2. Acoustically distinct rooms provide ambient cues that are highly recognizable. We all know what our own listening room sounds like. We have all been in public spaces with a distinct acoustical "signature." The more distinct the acoustical signature of the listening room, the more audible the differences between the listening room and the recording space will be. The result is that, during playback, acoustically distinct rooms are more likely to sound acoustically contradictory, and therefore confusing. Again, IMO.
Two solutions to these problems are to construct a listening room that is either
3. Acoustically non-reactive, or
4. Acoustically non-distinct.
RE: 3. Acoustically non-reactive, or "dead" rooms solve the problem of contradictory ambient cues by eliminating most of the ambient cues of the listening room. Hence most of the ambient cues heard during playback are the ambient cues of the recording. IMO, the flaw in this approach is that the ambient cues of the recording will be presented BIDIRECTIONALLY, or at best HEMISPHERICALLY, which tends to diminish the illusion that "you are there." Another common problem with dead rooms is that they can shrink the size of images and the size of the soundstage, both of which diminish realism. IMO.
RE: 4. Acoustically non-distinct, or "ambiguous" rooms solve the problem of contradictory ambient cues by having ambient cues that are less recognizable, and therefore less audible during playback. An acoustically ambiguous room sounds less like "that room" and more like "any room." Of course, no room can be perfectly ambiguous. But, IME, good listening rooms provide a range of ambiguity that reduces contradictory ambient cues during playback and therefore creates a more convincing illusion that "you are there."
To bring all this back to holographic sound. To me, holographic sound is about
a. realistic images, and
b. realistic soundstage (i.e. the spatial relations among images)
IME, realistic images can be achieved easily enough in acoustically dead rooms, with the qualification that acoustically dead rooms sometimes shrink images of instruments and performers to unrealistic sizes. IME, a realistic soundstage is more difficult to achieve in acoustically dead rooms, for the reasons I mentioned above.
Finally, I believe that efforts to increase the acoustical ambiguity of a listening room will make the soundstage more realistic on a wider range of recordings, and therefore acoustically ambiguous rooms are more likely to be holographic.
Just how to create an acoustically ambiguous room is not something about which I have any real expertise. I have some ideas, mostly gleaned from the characteristics common to the rooms I've experienced as ambiguous. The ambiguous rooms were...
-Reactive
-Large but not huge
-Few surfaces that create coherent reflections
-Lots of diffusion
-Medium reverberation time
-Mixture of surface materials
I dont know how to order that list, but the rooms Ive experienced as acoustically ambiguous had most or all of those characteristics, and probably others Im not thinking of.
IMO, IME, YMMV etc. etc.
Bryon |
